PDA

View Full Version : Random 4th Edition Artwork Nitpick (Because it's popular!)



DiscipleofBob
2008-05-30, 10:41 PM
Player's Handbook page 103.

Can't really provide the direct picture, maybe some else will be so kind as to oblige.

Anyway...

Elven Jedi with twin green lightsabers?!

I knew 4th edition was borrowing stuff from Star Wars Saga Edition but this is ridiclous.

Discuss.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-30, 10:43 PM
Clarke's law: Sufficiently advanced tech is indistinguishable from magic.

That's all.

Fishy
2008-05-30, 10:47 PM
Similarly, sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-30, 10:50 PM
When isn't magic advanced enough in D&D?

On other settings, though, that applies.

Edea
2008-05-30, 10:57 PM
She's so...green o.o

Ned the undead
2008-05-30, 11:25 PM
Brilliant Energy ftw.

bosssmiley
2008-05-31, 03:44 AM
It's fundamental law of the tropeverse that Power Glows (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerGlows). The more glow, the more power. :smallwink:

The Necroswanso
2008-05-31, 03:56 AM
AAARG! That glow, it makes me so mad! RAGE RAGE RAAAAAAAAAAAAGE! *explodes*


Wait...Did you just complain about a picture, and then not even show us? I can't even see the picture. (granted you can't provide it. Why bother than?)
Your post is technically worse than talking to hear yourself. There's literally nothing to "discuss". Come on dude, you can do better.

Sarastro
2008-05-31, 04:34 AM
The first picture of the Tieflings I saw from 4e made me think:
"Oh look, what cute little evil Draenei."
Then again, just seeing picture of the Dragonborn make me want to play as one. Also, I think the dwarves look less like Warhammer than they did in the last edition.

Matthew
2008-05-31, 04:54 AM
Clarke's law: Sufficiently advanced tech is indistinguishable from magic.

That's all.



Similarly, sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

Actually, it doesn't work quite the same in reverse. Magic, by its very conception, can do stuff that technology simply cannot.


Wait...Did you just complain about a picture, and then not even show us?
The artist is William O'Connor (http://www.wocstudios.com/main.htm). Unfortunately, this piece of art is not available at his online studio.

Skyserpent
2008-05-31, 04:59 AM
Actually, it doesn't work quite the same in reverse. Magic, by its very conception, can do stuff that technology simply cannot.

Well... it's indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced technology... but we're just splittin' hairs here

Dhavaer
2008-05-31, 05:01 AM
Wait...Did you just complain about a picture, and then not even show us? I can't even see the picture. (granted you can't provide it. Why bother than?)

I think that this is the picture refered to:

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e100/Dhavaer/112913.jpg

Matthew
2008-05-31, 05:01 AM
Well... it's indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced technology... but we're just splittin' hairs here

No, actually that's not true either, as such a view assumes that technology can overcome the laws of physics, which is impossible. Magic on the other hand, has no such restriction - that's what makes it magic . If technology were to overcome physics it would [I]be magic.

Skyserpent
2008-05-31, 05:11 AM
No, actually that's not true either, as such a view assumes that technology can overcome the laws of physics, which is impossible. Magic on the other hand, has no such restriction - that's what makes it magic . If technology were to overcome physics it would [I]be magic.

Ah, but we would CALL it Science!

it would be a NEW science, yes, but still Science. Historically people believed humans could never achieve flight, and so, anything that could fly would very easily be called "Magical" but once it happened, well, it did.

Breaking the Speed of Light could very much be like breaking the speed of sound. Though the nuances and mechanics of it are such that it would have to disprove a hitherto undisputed "Law".

I'm not saying it happened, but what I am saying is that "Laws" of science have been proven wrong before, and it's by testing the limits of said "laws" that we can manage to accidentally or purposefully surpass them.

Of course... Modern Physics are pretty solid, it'll take a WHILE before we can even THINK about beating that... Singularity level stuff you know?

Anyway, I think that I could imagine some theoretical super-future where people do stuff that I would think was downright freakin' Magical.


I mean, it CAN go the other way around, (Sufficient Magic indistinguishable from Tech) But I mean, we'd have to set the bar for Tech a little higher than it currently is, which I think is totally possible, if a little less feasible considering the upper-limit set by Magic is nigh-infinite, but here in "Reality" we like to put "Realistic" limits on things that we break in a few decades/centuries anyway... Not that we WILL break them, but we do have a track record of it...

Matthew
2008-05-31, 05:16 AM
Ah, but we would CALL it Science!

I think you missed the point. Impossible things are not possible. Technology doing the 'impossible' is mere rhetoric, it is not possible. Magic doing the impossible is impossible because magic does not exist, the things it is capable of being only limited by the imagination. This is not true of technology, there are limits to what it can ever achieve.

You may disagree as to what the limits of technology are, but there are hard limits [i.e. not "we're not advanced enough" limits]. Or maybe you don't agree there are limits, I don't know. :smallwink:

Xuincherguixe
2008-05-31, 05:30 AM
Well... if something happens, it's possible isn't it? In that sense, it just meant that what was assumed to be the correct model of physics of the Universe was wrong. It's kind of nitpicky, but it seems to me that in a world with magic, any models of physics are going to take magic into account.

"Two objects fall at an equal rate regardless of mass, unless a wizard makes it so they don't."

Matthew
2008-05-31, 05:36 AM
Well... if something happens, it's possible isn't it? In that sense, it just meant that what was assumed to be the correct model of physics of the Universe was wrong. It's kind of nitpicky, but it seems to me that in a world with magic, any models of physics are going to take magic into account.

"Two objects fall at an equal rate regardless of mass, unless a wizard makes it so they don't."

Nope, this is an interesting and common conception of magic as a branch of science. Magic (if it were to exist) would not obey the physical laws of the universe (well, some versions might, but we're talking extreme cases here). It is essentially miraculous and inexplicable, which is to say it controvenes all known laws of the universe in such a way that would make a nonesense of any attempt to explain what happens within the boundaries of any sort of physics. That is to say, there is no physical explanation for magic, it's not just beyond knowledge, but beyond the possibility of knowledge.

To put it another way, everytime magic occurs the following statement is true: "Something impossible just happened", which is to say a paradox is created.

Skyserpent
2008-05-31, 07:21 AM
Nope, this is an interesting and common conception of magic as a branch of science. Magic (if it were to exist) would not obey the physical laws of the universe (well, some versions might, but we're talking extreme cases here). It is essentially miraculous and inexplicable, which is to say it controvenes all known laws of the universe in such a way that would make a nonesense of any attempt to explain what happens within the boundaries of any sort of physics. That is to say, there is no physical explanation for magic, it's not just beyond knowledge, but beyond the possibility of knowledge.

To put it another way, everytime magic occurs the following statement is true: "Something impossible just happened", which is to say a paradox is created.

Hence the entire plot behind Mage: the Awakening or whatever it calls itself now, (It's fun!) But I digress:

I suppose you're right. Technology CANNOT hit the upper limit posed by magic due to there not BEING an upper limit posed by magic. At least in some areas. There are situations where "Magic" is being utilized to perform mundane tasks which Technology can mimic perfectly, but the nature of technology IS such that it can't match the functional idea of Magic defined as "Something impossible made possible." Though some may define magic as "Something ludicrous made plausible" This isn't what we deal with in D&D. So how about I pose this one:

"Sufficient amounts of magic can be indistinguishable from technology. Though the upper limits of said magic surpass this distinction. "


As a side note on the Physics discussion: PHYSICS doesn't necessarily obey the laws of Physics in all cases. I mean, aren't quantum and atomic physics both incompatible? This means we're either wrong or missing something... so it COULD be conceivable that we can break what is currently defined as a Law of physics if it turns out we were wrong about that particular law... As I said, it's happened in the past, Heliocentric ism and all that.

Once again though: Conceivable doesn't mean anything REMOTELY near likely. It's just a thought I found interesting...

Matthew
2008-05-31, 07:55 AM
"Sufficient amounts of magic can be indistinguishable from technology. Though the upper limits of said magic surpass this distinction. "

Sounds reasonable to me. I think another point about Clarke's law is that Clarke himself presupposes that magic does not exist, hence his postulation that anything that appears magical is in fact the result of technology. when people reverse the law, I think they miss the point, but we have probably derailed this thread enough already... where's Charity with the obligatory train derailment image?



As a side note on the Physics discussion: PHYSICS doesn't necessarily obey the laws of Physics in all cases. I mean, aren't quantum and atomic physics both incompatible? This means we're either wrong or missing something... so it COULD be conceivable that we can break what is currently defined as a Law of physics if it turns out we were wrong about that particular law... As I said, it's happened in the past, Heliocentric ism and all that.

Once again though: Conceivable doesn't mean anything REMOTELY near likely. It's just a thought I found interesting...

You would have to ask somebody more learned on the subject than me (Dervag or Dan Hemmens, pehaps?). My understanding is that there is physics "the model" and physics "the reality", the former describes the latter and is undergoing a constant process of refinement and correction (and thus is in a state of minor flux on account of disagreement). Magic would not just contradict the description, but the reality.

That said, I think that very high level physics starts to interact with philosophical, theological and religious concepts in ways that I am not conversant with.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-31, 07:58 AM
I suppose you're right. Technology CANNOT hit the upper limit posed by magic due to there not BEING an upper limit posed by magic.

In most fantasy settings I'm aware of (Mage: the Ascension, and Amber, being two exceptions), there is very much an upper limit to what magic can actually do. "Magic can do whatever I say it does" is such a cop out, that having meaningful methods and limits to it tends to make for a better story.

Matthew
2008-05-31, 08:03 AM
In most fantasy settings I'm aware of (Mage: the Ascension, and Amber, being two exceptions), there is very much an upper limit to what magic can actually do. "Magic can do whatever I say it does" is such a cop out, that having meaningful methods and limits to it tends to make for a better story.

I think that's usually a limit as to what the practioners can do, rather than a limitation of magic as a concept. That said, I can certainly think of modern stories where a character claims that he has reached the limits of what magic can achieve, but that usually conveys some sort of moral message, I think.

Xsjado
2008-05-31, 08:34 AM
A better nitpick than the OP is that a large majority of the characters in the races section appear to be left-handed. Notably, the artists don't seem to know the correct way to hold a bow.

Worira
2008-05-31, 09:36 AM
Bows are like hockey sticks, the handedness is a matter of preference. Or are they holding the bows wrong some other way?

UserClone
2008-05-31, 09:41 AM
I have met precious few who hold either hockey stick or bow the "goofy" way (if you will) for their handedness; that having been said, you are technically correct. It's possible, though improbably disproportionate.

Worira
2008-05-31, 09:51 AM
I have met precious few who hold either hockey stick or bow the "goofy" way (if you will) for their handedness; that having been said, you are technically correct. It's possible, though improbably disproportionate.

How are you defining "goofy", exactly? Most right-handed professional hockey players shoot left, but it's certainly not an overwhelming statistic.

Tengu
2008-05-31, 09:53 AM
A better nitpick than the OP is that a large majority of the characters in the races section appear to be left-handed. Notably, the artists don't seem to know the correct way to hold a bow.

Maybe they've finally acknowledged the role that Legend of Zelda had on modern fantasy?

(For these who don't know, Link, just like yours truly, is left-handed.)

Xsjado
2008-05-31, 09:59 AM
Bows are like hockey sticks, the handedness is a matter of preference. Or are they holding the bows wrong some other way?

It is indeed a matter of preference; the preference being that most left handed people shoot right handed.

For that matter several of them do hold the bow wrong in other ways: arrow on wrong side of bow, not drawing to the correct position to aim etc. I know there are a lot of styles of bow shooting but every bow we see in the PHB is a European shortbow so it should all be pretty much the same.

FoE
2008-05-31, 06:53 PM
In any case, the OP's question was: does that bug anyone else? My response is: What, glowing swords? What the heck is wrong with that?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 06:59 PM
In most fantasy settings I'm aware of (Mage: the Ascension, and Amber, being two exceptions), there is very much an upper limit to what magic can actually do. "Magic can do whatever I say it does" is such a cop out, that having meaningful methods and limits to it tends to make for a better story.

Not to mention, Technology, if sufficiently advanced, can go FARTHER than magic ever can. For example, autodeath from being hit by an unsustainable black hole, or moving millions of miles in seconds. Or brutal strength.

Cuddly
2008-05-31, 07:45 PM
The art in the PHB is too busy for me. Sort of reminiscent of the graphicals for a certain blizzard production. :smallwink:

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 07:49 PM
The art in the PHB is too busy for me. Sort of reminiscent of the graphicals for a certain blizzard production. :smallwink:

Nah, it's hyperrealistic, not cartoony.

Cuddly
2008-05-31, 07:55 PM
So realistic it looks like a cartoon.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 07:58 PM
Go ahead. Tell me the Raise Dead pic looks cartoonish. Or the SMurf dragonborn.

Jayabalard
2008-05-31, 08:24 PM
I think you missed the point. Impossible things are not possible. Technology doing the 'impossible' is mere rhetoric, it is not possible. Magic can't do impossible things either; be definition, if it can be done then it is not impossible.

In fiction, there may or may not be limits on advanced tech, just like there may or may not be limits on magic; it doesn't really matter whether those limits are called the "laws of magic" or laws of physics"

None of this really has anything to do with Clarke's 3rd law or Niven's corollary to that law.

Callos_DeTerran
2008-05-31, 08:35 PM
Not to mention, Technology, if sufficiently advanced, can go FARTHER than magic ever can. For example, autodeath from being hit by an unsustainable black hole, or moving millions of miles in seconds. Or brutal strength.

Not true. If you want a reason I think this then merely look at Epic Magic...or a Tippy wizard.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 08:38 PM
Not true. If you want a reason I think this then merely look at Epic Magic...or a Tippy wizard.

Matter rearrangement and creation is one of the things Science is aiming for, for the distant future. Impossible for now, but hey, faster than light travel is impossible for now but still demonstrated to occurr.

The Glyphstone
2008-05-31, 09:11 PM
If magic can do something that technology can't.......your technology is not sufficiently advanced.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2008-05-31, 09:19 PM
Sounds reasonable to me. I think another point about Clarke's law is that Clarke himself presupposes that magic does not exist, hence his postulation that anything that appears magical is in fact the result of technology. when people reverse the law, I think they miss the point, but we have probably derailed this thread enough already... where's Charity with the obligatory train derailment image?


You would have to ask somebody more learned on the subject than me (Dervag or Dan Hemmens, pehaps?). My understanding is that there is physics "the model" and physics "the reality", the former describes the latter and is undergoing a constant process of refinement and correction (and thus is in a state of minor flux on account of disagreement). Magic would not just contradict the description, but the reality.

That said, I think that very high level physics starts to interact with philosophical, theological and religious concepts in ways that I am not conversant with.

Magic would not contradict the reality, as magic would be built into the reality of physics, as is everything else. It would merely be an area of physics we have not even begun to explore, nor have we discovered at all!

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 09:21 PM
Magic would not contradict the reality, as magic would be built into the reality of physics, as is everything else. It would merely be an area of physics we have not even begun to explore, nor have we discovered at all!

Not to mention, you really don't get how Magic and Technology work until you play Arcanum.

Seriously. It's like reading "How to understand RPG's".

Cuddly
2008-05-31, 09:22 PM
Go ahead. Tell me the Raise Dead pic looks cartoonish. Or the SMurf dragonborn.

The MM zombies look great. The full page spread on the inside of the PHB looks stupid.

Zeful
2008-05-31, 09:59 PM
It is indeed a matter of preference; the preference being that most left handed people shoot right handed.

For that matter several of them do hold the bow wrong in other ways: arrow on wrong side of bow, not drawing to the correct position to aim etc. I know there are a lot of styles of bow shooting but every bow we see in the PHB is a European shortbow so it should all be pretty much the same.

Most left-handed people who shoot, play an instrument etc. right-handed do so because most teachers (and the equipment) are right handed themselves. I am left handed and got my fire-arms safety certificate shooting left handed, I shoot my left-handed bow left-handed, I play my guitar (which is ambidextrous) left handed.

So it's not so much a matter of preference than a matter of necessity.

Hzurr
2008-05-31, 11:24 PM
Getting back to talking about the art...


Has anyone else noticed where they randomly kept the old 3.5 artwork (particularly in the MM)? There's a few random ones scattered here and there (the Drow picture, for example), that are the same picture as was in the 3.5. Did they just decide there was no reason to change the look, or did they simply get lazy?

DiscipleofBob
2008-05-31, 11:41 PM
Holy crap! How did this get to 5 pages?

Wow, I intended the OP just to poke fun at everyone else who had long, contrived discussions also nitpicking some random detail as obscure or meaningless as the artwork in 4th edition.

That and the thought of a woodsy elven ranger wielding two weapons from Star Wars was something amusing to me.

And I don't even post that often, so there's no reason for anyone here to take me seriously.

Clearly, I must study more of your strange playground posting ways.

:smalltongue:

Dhavaer
2008-06-01, 12:28 AM
Holy crap! How did this get to 5 pages?

What settings are you using? It's only 2 pages for me.

FoE
2008-06-01, 12:32 AM
Holy crap! How did this get to 5 pages?

Wow, I intended the OP just to poke fun at everyone else who had long, contrived discussions also nitpicking some random detail as obscure or meaningless as the artwork in 4th edition.

Clearly, I must study more of your strange playground posting ways.

I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again:

SARCASM DOES NOT TRANSLATE WELL ON THE INTERNET! :tongue:

I was kind of wondering what the problem was, honestly. It's not like magic swords have never appeared in the game.

As for how this discussion even got to two pages, well, this is the GitP gaming forums. It's not like any of us have "lives" or anything. :smalltongue:

DiscipleofBob
2008-06-01, 12:55 AM
What settings are you using? It's only 2 pages for me.

I have more posts per page set so it's easier to load up on, say, a crappy computer.


I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again:

SARCASM DOES NOT TRANSLATE WELL ON THE INTERNET! :tongue:

I was kind of wondering what the problem was, honestly. It's not like magic swords have never appeared in the game.

As for how this discussion even got to two pages, well, this is the GitP gaming forums. It's not like any of us have "lives" or anything. :smalltongue:

Too true, too true...

I thought the smiley label on the thread would at least provide the hint. Guess a stronger disclaimer is in order in the future.

Or I could actually stop trolling the forums and contribute a post every once in awhile... nah...

Matthew
2008-06-01, 04:49 AM
Not to mention, Technology, if sufficiently advanced, can go FARTHER than magic ever can. For example, autodeath from being hit by an unsustainable black hole, or moving millions of miles in seconds. Or brutal strength.

Perhaps if you read a particular type of fiction that might be the case, but anything technology can do can be undone or made so it did not even happen through magic [and we're talking about the real limits of technology and the fictional limits of magic here]. There's no way that technology can do more than my imagination.



Magic can't do impossible things either; be definition, if it can be done then it is not impossible.

In fiction, there may or may not be limits on advanced tech, just like there may or may not be limits on magic; it doesn't really matter whether those limits are called the "laws of magic" or laws of physics"

None of this really has anything to do with Clarke's 3rd law or Niven's corollary to that law.

No, that is to misunderstand the nature of 'impossible' in this context. As I explained above, magic (as it is conceived here) creates a paradox in that impossible things occur. That they occur does not make them any more possible. To put it another way, I strongly disagree with Niven being used as an universal statement, but I don't disagree with Clarke.


Magic would not contradict the reality, as magic would be built into the reality of physics, as is everything else. It would merely be an area of physics we have not even begun to explore, nor have we discovered at all!

No, that is one interpretation of 'magic' and in that interpretation it is not really magic at all, but an aspect of science that we have yet to harness. That sort of magic is just man exploiting the natural laws of the universe and exactly what Clarke is talking about. What I am talking about are things that are unnatural or supernatural, things that by definition are in fact impossible.

There is a huge difference between things that occur within the laws of physics and things that are imagined to occur outside of those laws or independently of any laws.

We are massively derailing this thread, though, so let's start a new one!

Irreverent Fool
2008-06-01, 04:54 AM
I think that this is the picture refered to:

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e100/Dhavaer/112913.jpg

Gee, I have swords that look EXACTLY LIKE THAT in World of Warcraft.

Skyserpent
2008-06-01, 04:56 AM
/shrug

I like science.

JaxGaret
2008-06-01, 05:04 AM
The swords are leaving intermittent glowing light trails.

Do lightsabers leave intermittent glowing light trails? No.

Sorry, Bob, but your premise here is wrong.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-01, 06:45 AM
The swords are leaving intermittent glowing light trails.

Do lightsabers leave intermittent glowing light trails? No.

Sorry, Bob, but your premise here is wrong.

That's not an intermittent glowing trail... those are all the bugs she's zapped by moving the lightsaber. :smallbiggrin:

Project_Mayhem
2008-06-01, 08:06 AM
Gee, I have swords that look EXACTLY LIKE THAT in World of Warcraft.

OMG, I have arms and legs and eyes too! They copied my body!

Glowing swords were not first created in WOW, surprisingly

JaxGaret
2008-06-01, 08:10 AM
That's not an intermittent glowing trail... those are all the bugs she's zapped by moving the lightsaber. :smallbiggrin:

So the lesson today is, Elven Rangers hate bugs?

Brauron
2008-06-01, 09:29 AM
So the lesson today is, Elven Rangers hate bugs?

Favored Enemy (Vermin)?